1
1

[–] MinorLeakage 1 point 1 point (+2|-1) ago 

Listen to the tape. Clinton generally finds the whole thing pretty hilarious. She does laugh at the "unreliable nature of polygraphs", specifically because her client passed one when she knew he was guilty. This is exactly what the posted picture says: "...she admitted she knew he was guilty. And she laughed about it". So 100% true.

Clinton was a public defender at the time, but the case was NOT assigned to her. She took the case as a favor, and received no additional payments for doing so. You can argue semantics over whether she "volunteered" or not, but she took a case that was not assigned to her, as a favor to a friend/acquaintance.

Clinton literally said, in a sworn affidavit (also included in the previous source) "...the complainant is emotionally unstable with a tendency to seek out older men and engage in fantasizing." And "...children in early adolescence tend to exaggerate or romanticize sexual experiences...". So again, confirms 100% what the picture states.

Nowhere does the picture state the case went to trial. The arguments were put forward in pre-trial discovery, which, oddly enough, occurs in a courtroom.

So again. Everything in the picture is 100% verifiable and true. I doubt anything I've said will change your opinion, since it's obvious you never looked at the original evidence in the first place. Enjoy being told what to think by the editorials at Snopes though.

2
-1

[–] Jasoman 2 points -1 points (+1|-2) ago  (edited ago)

Well I am not going to convince you and you are not going to convince me so I guess we just have to let sleeping dogs lie cause this is not going anywhere since who know who made that picture and both ends of this ordeal is fussy at best. Nothing is 100% in this day of age.

EDIT: have a up voat for not Amalek and saying it was the Jews.

0
0

[–] MinorLeakage ago 

I apologize if I was short with you. You are definitely correct, there is some margin for error both ways. Mostly I was taking exception to the Snopes article and the original comment I replied to.

Thanks for taking the time to actually talk with me, and to make specific points instead of vague platitudes. We may not agree, but I respect you for at least having a reason for what you believe, and being willing to talk about it.

For what it's worth, I'm not American, so my opinion is of exceptionally little value.

Hope you have a nice day!